Which would suppose I guess that at the beginning - the singularity - there was observance. A single entity that is aware of its own singularity. Seems pretty theistic to me. — Benj96
To truly imagine a universe with no observer, then you must imagine it from no point of view. Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away. Of course, if you realise what that means, then you will realise its impossibility. — Wayfarer
We naively assume that we see what is truly present... — Wayfarer
Inter-subjective validation. The ‘view from nowhere’. It’s still a view. — Wayfarer
But it works; as you can see by the existence of the device on which you are reading this. — Banno
Right. It's aggregated, obtainable. There isn't going to be a case where an anti-omni observation is selectable. So, we describe a sense different than simply a single individual, but not without the unknown error of being one. Pragmatic objectivity.Inter-subjective validation. The ‘view from nowhere’. It’s still a view. — Wayfarer
It's very good that you brought up the element of "chemical reactions". However, I don''t see that you mention the brain at all, which functions basically on them, but instead you attribute them to awareness (as a possibility). I don't know, are you attempting to identify brain with awareness? Anyway, I have already explained their differences. Yet, here's a little more about them:mean that if “life” is in fact a false distinction from other inanimate chemistry and simply a very complex physical process that gives the impression of “self reference” or emergence of ego, then it stands to reason that awareness is just a product of chemical/energetic reactions. And if that is the case then perhaps all chemical interactions in the universe are to some degree observing the other ones. This is along the lines of Panpsychism where awareness is a fundamental property like space, time, matter etc — Benj96
The fact that technology works is not relevant to the question at issue. Technology has very little to say about such questions although it obviously provides the medium across which it can be debated. — Wayfarer
It’s difficult to imagine anything in reality being significant or measurable without some aware entity to go “oooh!”. But if we go by evidence, life wasn’t always around and therefore there must be a cold dead universe that existed before it could be appreciated. — Benj96
By the same reason how does one say what is relevant? The default assumption that any observation imposes information that renders the observation invalid is circular and can't be supported by the very foundation which supposes it. Would the world look different in infrared? Sure. Would it change, no. — Cheshire
When we look at the objects of scientific knowledge, we don’t tend to see the experiences that underpin them. We do not see how experience makes their presence to us possible. Because we lose sight of the necessity of experience, we erect a false idol of science as something that bestows absolute knowledge of reality, independent of how it shows up and how we interact with it.
What I'm saying is that the observer brings an indispensable foundation to whatever understanding you have of the Universe, including the idea of 'an empty universe'. — Wayfarer
I'm going to hold you to it.I'm not claiming that observation is rendered invalid by the requirement that there be an observer. — Wayfarer
Doing good here.....the oft-expressed sentiment that humanity is a 'mere blip in a vast sea of time', which, while an objectively valid judgement... — Wayfarer
If it is objectively valid, then the objection is that this "neglect" reduces the quality below some standard while being technically within another one....neglects the fact that it is still a judgement, and one which, to our knowledge, only humans are capable of making. — Wayfarer
For itself the volcano does not depend on someone calling it "volcano". — Heiko
It does not require anyone to actually view the logs for the traces to be there. — Heiko
Scientists increasingly don't think of science as 'absolute truth' but tentative models based on the best available information. — Tom Storm
If being a product of human judgement sets us apart from discovering truth then so be it. — Cheshire
If being a product of human judgement sets us apart from discovering truth then so be it. — Cheshire
Yes, I would tend to object to it. But, either truth is obtainable or it isn't. The process of seeing what holds and fails from different points of view implies we aren't limited to our own. The matter that its always a human point of view implies there are unknowns. I think it's reasonable to assume there will be unknowns and not always as a result of second order neglect, but human error in general. Is it problematic?You realise how big a statement you're making there? — Wayfarer
I think it's reasonable to assume there will be unknowns and not always as a result of second order neglect, but human error in general. Is it problematic? — Cheshire
Cartesian anxiety refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other".
So Kant differentiates between the reality of appearances, and reality as it is in itself. — Wayfarer
Does a tree fall in a forest where there is nobody there to see it? — Wayfarer
I don't have any trouble with that idea. There is no perfect source of knowledge and maybe without religion framing the world in extremes we wouldn't have made the assumption initially. So, we're in agreement, but perhaps for different reasons. If the current view is wrong then what is the correction?My aim here is to argue that the widespread and taken-for-granted intuition of the separately-existing world is really an inevitable consequence of the modern ‘post-Enlightenment’ worldview. Hence the expression, ‘Cartesian anxiety’: — Wayfarer
It's just incorrect to expect truth to manifest itself upon our notice of a thing. As soon as we don't expect to be right all the time there's no issue in my view. How do you reconcile these errors?This is obviously a big question and we’re wading into deep waters here, but consider the origins of Western philosophy, specifically the questions raised about epistemology, how we know what we know, or what we think we know. That is the problematic! — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.